Meet America’s New Sheriffs

“President-elect Donald Trump and Kash Patel, his pick to lead the FBI, during the Army-Navy football game at Northwest Stadium in Landover, Md., on Dec. 14, 2024.” Doug Mills / The New York Times/Redux via NBC

The Trump administration would like you to know that there is a new sheriff in town. They invoke the trope frequently, from a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Facebook post praising President Donald Trump and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem for deterring illegal immigration to a speech by Vice President JD Vance in which he lambasted European nations for their anti-hate speech laws. In Western films, where the trope originates, the archetypical “new sheriff” arrives in a frontier town ruled by corrupt or incompetent lawmen, deposes them, and establishes a new order that promises a truer form of justice. In the month since Trump returned to Washington, purges in every major part of the federal law enforcement apparatus have left it beyond doubt that a reordering is underway. However, the kind of justice that Trump’s emerging order will produce largely remains to be seen. The task of forging this order will fall to the new wave of conservative officials appointed to replace their mostly non-partisan predecessors.

To lead the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), America’s premier federal law enforcement agency, the Trump administration has appointed a pair of loyalists, Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino. Both have a skeptical relationship with the agency. Patel, an embittered former federal prosecutor, spearheaded the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee investigation into the FBI’s investigation of Trump’s ties to Russia. During this investigation, the CIA criminally referred him to the Justice Department (DOJ) after he allegedly disclosed classified intelligence related to the investigation to people without clearances. Patel was ultimately not charged with a crime. Patel has asserted that the FBI is part of the “deep state” and even proposed turning the bureau’s headquarters into a museum showcasing its crimes. Multiple FBI officials made Patel’s so-called “enemies list” of government officials supposedly part of the “deep state,” including former Directors James Comey and Christopher Wray. If anything, Bongino, a prominent right-wing podcast host, has been an even more virulent critic, arguing without evidence that the bureau hid information about the pipe bombs planted outside the Democratic and Republican National Conventions because they were part of an “inside job” to frame Trump supporters for the violence. 

Given their appointment of two men who hold the agency in contempt to its highest positions, it is unsurprising that the Trump administration has also sought to purge disfavored individuals from the bureau. Under the direction of Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, eight senior executives were fired, and an additional seven executive assistant directors (who had led the bureau's Criminal, Cyber, Human Resources, Information and Technology, National Security, Response and Services, and Science and Technology branches) were demoted. Bove, who previously served as one of Trump's personal defense attorneys, has also sought the names of all FBI agents who worked on cases related to the January 6th Capitol riot. That effort concluded with a legal agreement not to publicly reveal the names of agents who worked on those cases without giving them two days’ notice and the opportunity to contest the decision in court. Despite this seeming victory, one of the agents most strongly resisted Bove’s attempt to access the names, James Dennehy, was forced out not long after the agreement was signed. Dennehy, who led the FBI’s New York field office, had told his staff that he would “dig in” in response to the firings of senior FBI leaders. 

Retaliation against those who worked on Capitol riot cases has not confined itself to the FBI. The interim U.S. Attorney for Washington D.C., Ed Martin, has overseen the demotion and firing of prosecutors who worked on cases related to the January 6th attack, as well as the forced resignation of a prosecutor who refused to freeze Biden-era environmental funds. Martin, who previously represented three Capitol riot defendants, recently referred to himself and those working under him as “President Trumps’ [sic] lawyers”. Martin has expressed openness towards pursuing other political goals on behalf of the Trump administration, including threatening to prosecute Democratic lawmakers for statements that he argues are tantamount to incitement of violence. Martin’s office has sent legal threat letters to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Representative Robert Garcia (D-CA), accusing them of threatening violence against their political opponents. In particular, Schumer’s comments, in which he stated that Supreme Court justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch had “released the whirlwind” and “w[ould] pay the price” following a 2020 abortion-related case, caused a stir when they were made. Following condemnation from the American Bar Association, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Congressional Republicans, Schumer apologized on the Senate floor. Despite this widespread backlash, the letter from Martin was the first indication that Schumer might face legal consequences for his remarks, which likely do not meet the legal standard for true threats. 

Perhaps the most dramatic showdown between Trump’s appointees and the old order came in the Justice Department’s Southern District of New York (SDNY), an office with such a reputation for independence that it has been nicknamed “the sovereign district.” Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, once again serves as the administration’s chosen enforcer. Bove, a former SDNY prosecutor, has a complicated relationship with his old office, having been investigated there multiple times for allegations of abusive behavior towards his subordinates. The recent clash occurred after Bove ordered interim U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon to dismiss a corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, a Democrat, who was charged in September with accepting bribes from Türkiye. Sassoon, a registered Republican and member of the Federalist Society who clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia, refused to do so, instead accusing Bove of arranging a quid pro quo in a letter to his boss, Attorney General Pam Bondi. According to Sassoon’s account, Adams’ lawyers informed Bove that the mayor would only be able to assist the administration in conducting immigration enforcement if the charges against him were dropped. Sassoon then offered to resign if the Department of Justice was still unwilling to allow the case to go on. Bove responded with a blistering eight-page letter accusing Sassoon of insubordination, accepting her resignation, placing the line prosecutors working on the case on leave, and defending the decision to dismiss the case. Bove accused the prosecution of being politically motivated, echoing allegations made by Adams’ lawyers that the Biden administration had prosecuted him in retaliation for his criticism of their immigration policy. Bove also defended the idea that advancing the Trump administration’s immigration policy was a legitimate reason to drop the case. Following Sassoon’s forced resignation, seven other lawyers, comprising nearly all of the supervisors in the SDNY’s Public Integrity unit, resigned. One of them, Hagan Scotten, another conservative who clerked for Chief Justice John Roberts, accused the administration of choosing to dismiss the case without prejudice in order to use the threat of reopening the case as leverage against the mayor, calling any lawyer who would obey the directive to dismiss the case a “fool” or a “coward.” The morning after the mass resignations took place, Bove summoned the remainder of the Public Integrity unit to a meeting in which he informed them that he wanted a prosecutor from the unit to cosign the motion to dismiss. He then left the unit time to decide who would sign the motion. After a discussion in which the unit reportedly considered resigning en masse, Edward Sullivan, an experienced anti-corruption prosecutor who is nearing retirement, offered to sign the motion, supposedly to avoid a mass firing. The dismissal was filed just hours later. Around the same time, Eric Adams gave federal immigration agents access to the jail complex on Rikers Island, becoming one of the first public officials outside of the administration to accede to its demands under legal pressure. During the old order, the apolitical nature of America’s federal law enforcement institutions was assumed but rarely felt. Now that the officials who defined and defended these institutions are gone, the Adams case shows the consequences of their removal. 

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth became the latest Trump administration official to move against his department’s law enforcement apparatus with his firing of the top Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs) for the Army, Air Force, and Navy. The JAG Corps forms the core of the US military’s criminal justice system, fulfilling a variety of roles from prosecuting and defending accused criminals to advising senior military leaders on the legality of their actions. It is this latter role that has earned them Hegseth’s ire. Hegseth, a consistent defender of American war criminals, blamed JAGs (derided in his book The War on Warriors as “jagoffs”) for imposing restrictive rules of engagement that he believes crippled the American war effort in Afghanistan. Hegseth has only just begun to replace the fired JAGs, recently appointing his personal lawyer, Timothy Parlatore, as a commander in the Naval Reserve JAG corps. Parlatore previously served as defense counsel for two Navy SEALs: Eddie Gallagher, who was demoted for photographing himself posing with a corpse, and another SEAL who was charged with sexual assault. In a letter to Congress, five former Defense Secretaries, including one former Marine Corps General James Mattis, who served during the previous Trump administration, have denounced the firings of the JAGs and other military leaders, condemning what they saw as the President removing constraints on his power. Their letter was hardly necessary. At a press conference a few days earlier, Hegseth had all but said as much, stating that the fired lawyers would have been “roadblocks to orders that are given by a commander in chief.”

Intent is often difficult to discern in the actions of the Trump administration, particularly as its reign remains in its early stages. However, Trump has shown a repeated tendency to appoint officials to the leadership of agencies that they have reason to despise. Kash Patel, who launched his career in conservative politics attacking the credibility of the Russia investigation, sees the FBI as a tool of the deep state. Ed Martin represented Capitol rioters imprisoned by the office he now leads. Emil Bove gutted the DOJ office where he had faced multiple investigations. Pete Hegseth, who had always chafed at the idea of men in suits telling men in boots how to fight, was given authority over the JAG corps. From the President down, a sense that they have been greatly wronged - and that retribution is necessary - pervades the Trump administration. Now that they have struck against their enemies in the government, nearly all of whom are either gone or on their way out, what comes next is unclear. What is clear is that the sheriffs of the old order are gone. The lawmen who run Washington now prize a single virtue: loyalty. Those who can’t get behind that had best be on their way.

The Last Bastion of U.S. Democracy

Julia Nikhinson/Pool/Getty Images

In the month since his return to office, President Donald Trump has made extensive use of executive orders (EOs) to turn his campaign promises into reality. From signing an order pausing all foreign aid, to banning trans women athletes from participating in women’s sports, Trump has not shied away from testing the reach of the EO. Federal courts, however, have blocked a number of these measures, including the orders on birthright citizenship and Trump’s efforts to freeze federal funding. In response, Vice President JD Vance and Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) head Elon Musk have shown defiance to court orders, criticizing the supposed overreach by the courts and calling for the impeachment of justices who have halted Trump’s agenda. As calls have grown for Trump to ignore these warnings, some scholars warn that doing so could create a constitutional crisis. As such, it’s likely that the challenges from the executive branch may eventually fall into the hands of the Supreme Court. Luckily for those fearing the worst, the Court may be Trump’s biggest check in his second term.

The court hasn’t been particularly favorable to liberals in recent years, handing a series of detrimental decisions that overturned the federal right to an abortion, disposed of the Chevron doctrine, limited the EPA’s ability to mandate reductions in carbon emissions, and dismantled affirmative action. As such, many have grown pessimistic about the politicized nature of the court, worrying about upcoming decisions on racial gerrymandering, the ability of the government to regulate “ghost guns,” and gender-affirming care for minors. However, while the court isn’t going to make an ideological 180 in the next four years, they’re also not going to give Trump free rein to do whatever he wants.

For any given case, at least five justices will have to vote to uphold a federal court decision. Based on the ideological composition of the court–six conservative justices to three liberals–some may be quick to foretell doom. Don’t let the pessimists fool you, however–it’s a misnomer to say this is a 6-3 conservative court; it’s better characterized as a 3-3-3 court split between liberals, institutional conservatives, and hard-line conservatives. Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Associate Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett–the Court’s institutional conservatives–have all shown a willingness to compromise. Throughout the 2022-2023 session, the justices agreed with members of the liberal bloc about 80% of the time in non-unanimous decisions. As such, the odds of them moving to uphold the Trump-restricting decisions of the lower-level courts–due to institutional concerns–are better than cynics may expect.

In any given case, liberal Associate Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Sonia Sotomayor are surefire votes against Trump. The set of issues that the liberal justices see eye-to-eye with him on are few and far between. Among the conservative bloc, there are four justices who could reasonably make up the other two votes needed. Which two justices are most likely to break off is largely dependent on the issue, however.

On Trump’s budget tweaks, for example, the two conservative justices most likely to join the liberal justices in striking them down are Roberts and Kavanaugh. As several former secretaries of Treasury have pointed out, Roberts has previously written against executive overreach on financial affairs, arguing that “no area seems more clearly the province of Congress than the power of the purse.” Similarly, Kavanaugh wrote explicitly against it, saying that “Even the president does not have unilateral authority to refuse to spend the funds.” From cutting USAID to everything to do with Musk’s DOGE, expect the court to strike down these efforts to restructure the executive branch.

On a ruling regarding birthright citizenship, hardline conservative Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch could prove to be an unlikely ally for liberal justices. In April 2022, Gorsuch’s concurring opinion in United States v. Vaello-Madero called for the overturning of the Insular Cases, a set of rulings from the Spanish-American War asserting that constitutional rights do not fully apply to citizens of incorporated U.S. territories. Gorsuch’s decision to explicitly critique the rulings is noteworthy, and could signal that he may adopt a broad interpretation of jurisdiction (at least territorially) in a ruling on birthright citizenship. Similarly, the precedent-focused Roberts will likely vote in favor of birthright citizenship, a principle from the 14th Amendment that has been upheld in Dred Scott v Sanford and United States v Wong Kim Ark. 

Expect Gorsuch and the chief justice to once again come together for any ruling relating to same-sex marriage or LGBTQ+ rights. For Gorsuch, his majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, a 2020 case that ruled against workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation, may provide a preview on how he could approach similar cases that may arise in the coming terms. In his opinion, Gorsuch argued that “It is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating ... based on sex.” This ruling, which Roberts joined him on, could provide a framework for how the two justices would treat similar cases of discrimination by Trump.

Additionally, while Roberts dissented in the original Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, which legalized same-sex marriage, his respect for precedent might motivate him to cast a vote to uphold the ruling, should a challenge come before the court. A defining feature of the chief justice is his ability to put precedent before ideology, as displayed in his vote to support upholding Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban, but opposing the full overturn of Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.  

If the decision involves precedent or could impact the court’s credibility as an independent body insulated from political pressures, expect the institutional conservatives to step in. Roberts’ long-standing focus on the court’s credibility and legal integrity has been reinvigorated in recent years, with the chief justice reiterating the vitality of judicial independence in his 2024 end of the year report.

This sentiment seems to be echoed by Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who recently chose to recuse herself from a case involving her alma mater, Notre Dame. While not as much of an institutionalist as Roberts, Barrett has shown a respect for the court’s reputation, as well as a desire to not be seen as a political pawn who only serves to advance Trump’s agenda. In cases like Fischer v. United States, which dealt with the applicability of provisions in the Sarbanes–Oxley Act against participants in the January 6th insurrection, Barrett surprised observers by breaking with her conservative peers. Instead, she joined Sotomayor and Kagan in a dissenting opinion that called for a broader interpretation of the statute to prosecute individuals at the attempted coup d'état. Writ large, she was the most likely conservative justice to vote for a liberal outcome in the 2023-2024 term (a title that has historically belonged to Roberts). Beyond that, Barrett has voiced support for a binding ethics code for justices on the court. The move may be an indirect dig at fellow conservative Associate Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who have come under fire for failing to disclose millions of dollars of luxurious gifts from Republican donors. As such, while Barrett voting with the liberal bloc is by no means a guarantee, it certainly isn’t out of the question.

Similarly, Kavanaugh has proven remarkably similar to Roberts, voting with him 95% of the time during the 2022-2023 term.  Kavanaugh voted with Roberts and the liberal justices to uphold a test to determine the existence of discriminatory voting rules in Allen v Milligan, and took a more liberal interpretation of the 4th Amendment’s usage of “seizure” in Torres v. Madrid. While both Kavanaugh and Barrett have broken with Roberts on key issues, such as abortion, they have relatively stayed in line, voting with him more often than they voted with any other individual.

The bloc has moved together to prevent potential executive power grabs before, such as in Moore v. Harper, where they voted against giving state legislatures unregulated power to set the rules for federal elections in their own states. Under a different interpretation, allowing state legislatures to have unchecked power over federal election laws could create a situation where states with Republican-controlled state legislatures hand over their electoral votes won by a Democrat (e.g. Kamala Harris) to a Republican (e.g. Donald Trump). This concept, known as the independent state legislature theory, raised concerns from some experts about the implications for American democracy. The bloc, however, recognizing the risk at stake, voted to reject the ideal. In similar cases that may bring into question the Court’s credibility, expect any permutation of Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh to join the Court’s liberals to uphold the lower court.

While Barrett and Kavanaugh have mostly followed Roberts and his respect for precedent, Gorsuch–who isn’t motivated by the same institutional concerns–has charted his own course, producing a number of distinctive opinions over the years. Although Gorsuch is a hard-line conservative, most frequently aligning with Thomas and Alito, he’s shown a willingness to break from Trump on hot-button issues like immigration, indigenous sovereignty, and (as mentioned) LGBTQ+ rights. In his nomination, he noted a willingness to break from the president if the law necessitates it. He also harbored disdain for political name-calling by a president to a justice following an unfavorable decision–a sentiment shared by Roberts. He exercised this independence, voting with Kavanaugh and the court’s liberal justices to have Trump release his tax records, much to the president’s chagrin. As such, while Trump appointed Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, assuming the three’s loyalty to the president exceeds their legal integrity is a faulty speculation.

While Thomas and Alito could vote to solidify a unanimous decision, they don’t share the same institutional concerns that motivate Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, nor do they share the motivations behind Gorsuch’s track record of decisions. Instead, they tend to provide originalist decisions, adopting a stricter reading of the Constitution that usually bodes well for Republicans. That being said, as a whole, the Court is not as partisan as reporting makes it out to be, despite having a few high-profile, ideologically-bending decisions in recent years. Indeed, half of decisions in the 2022-2023 term were unanimous. Even polar opposites, like Sotomayor and Alito, have still ruled together in non-unanimous decisions more often than they did not. 

Furthermore, plenty of recent decisions have involved surprising majorities. Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co, which dealt with the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, had Justices Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, and Jackson in the majority and Roberts, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Barrett in the dissent. Similarly, in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, which discussed whether the Interstate Commerce clause could allow California to impose anti-animal cruelty standards on exporters from outside the state, had Sotomayor, Kagan, Thomas, Gorsuch and Barrett in the majority, and Roberts, Kavanaugh, Alito, and Jackson in the dissent. Only 8% of decisions from the 2022-2023 term were 6-3 across ideological lines. The depiction of the court as a solely political entity is wholly inaccurate.

As the president tests the limits of executive power, the Supreme Court may prove to be the ultimate check to Trump’s more radical and destructive impulses. While Trump appointed a third of the justices on the court, they aren’t his cronies, and will instead demonstrate a commitment–albeit a varying one–to the rule of law and preservation of credible institutions. As Trump rebuilds the government and redefines what it means to be president, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to be the safeguard that U.S. democracy needs to endure a second Trump administration.

Global Health in Crisis: The Ripple Effect of The U.S. Withdrawal from The WHO

Evan Vucci/AP

On his first day in office, President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of the World Health Organization (WHO). Within the executive order, Trump cited the WHO’s mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic, failure to adopt reforms (i.e. including Taiwan in proceedings and doing independent scientific investigations), failure to be independent from other states (namely China), and making the U.S. pay dues that are far too high. However, pandemics don’t care about nationalism. Abandoning the WHO does nothing but make the U.S. more vulnerable while alienating allies and weakening global disease response efforts. If the goal was to protect Americans, this move does the exact opposite—it’s reckless, shortsighted, and frankly, foolish.

Global health governance

The U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) disrupts global health coordination and security by weakening international responses to public health crises. The WHO plays a central role in pandemic preparedness, outbreak response, and global disease surveillance, ensuring that countries share critical information and coordinate containment measures. By leaving the organization, the U.S. risks diminished access to real-time epidemiological data, medical research, and collaborative response efforts that are essential for mitigating future health threats. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, the WHO facilitated the rapid dissemination of information regarding the virus' spread and coordinated vaccine distribution efforts through COVAX (an international program aiming to expand access to COVID-19 vaccines). Without direct participation, the U.S. will face delays in obtaining crucial health data, reducing its ability to prepare for and respond to emerging outbreaks effectively. Additionally, this withdrawal could undermine global trust in the U.S. as a reliable partner in international health governance, weakening its influence in shaping health policies and emergency response strategies. Ultimately, this decision risks hampering both U.S. public health security and broader global disease response efforts, as pandemics and outbreaks require multilateral cooperation to contain and control. 

Financing WHO

As one of the largest contributors to the WHO, the U.S. has historically provided substantial financial support for global health initiatives, including disease eradication programs, vaccine distribution, and emergency response efforts. Without these funds, the WHO will struggle to maintain essential health programs (vaccinations, maternal and child healthcare, chronic disease appointments, etc), particularly in low-income countries that rely on its support for basic healthcare infrastructure and outbreak preparedness. The consequences of this financial instability will be severe. The WHO plays a critical role in coordinating immunization efforts, medical aid distribution, and epidemic response, particularly in regions with limited resources. The loss of U.S. funding will disrupt these programs, exacerbating global health disparities and weakening the world’s ability to respond to future pandemics. Reduced WHO capacity does not just affect other countries; it increases the risk of uncontrolled outbreaks that could easily spread across borders, ultimately threatening U.S. public health as well.

Eradication of disease/global health equity 

The WHO has been instrumental in combating diseases such as polio, HIV/AIDS, and malaria, coordinating international vaccination programs and treatment initiatives to limit the impact of the pathogens. The U.S., as one of the largest contributors to the WHO, has played a pivotal role in funding these programs. The withdrawal of U.S. support jeopardizes these critical initiatives, potentially leading to a resurgence of preventable diseases, particularly in low-income countries that depend heavily on WHO assistance. Moreover, the thawing of permafrost due to climate change poses additional risks. As permafrost melts, it can release ancient pathogens that have been dormant for millennia, potentially leading to new disease outbreaks. A well-funded, coordinated global health response is essential to monitor and address these emerging threats. However, the U.S. withdrawal from the WHO undermines such efforts, leaving the global community less prepared to handle these challenges.

Disease surveillance

The WHO facilitates international collaboration by coordinating research and disseminating vital information on disease outbreaks, such as tracking new COVID-19 variants. By exiting the organization, the U.S. not only forfeits access to this real-time data but also diminishes its role in contributing valuable health information, thereby weakening global efforts to monitor and control diseases. This disruption in collaboration hampers the ability of all nations, including the U.S., to respond effectively to public health crises. As noted by the American Medical Student Association, the withdrawal isolates the U.S. from a key global health body, diminishing its ability to influence international health policies and initiatives that directly affect the safety and security of its population. Moreover, the absence of the U.S. in the WHO's coordinated efforts could lead to delays in identifying and containing outbreaks, increasing the risk of widespread transmission. The Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health emphasizes that withdrawing from the WHO would hamper national and international pandemic preparedness efforts, potentially leading to public health disasters.

Economic/global health consequences

Pandemics have massive economic consequences, from disrupting global supply chains to forcing costly government interventions. The COVID-19 pandemic alone caused trillions in economic losses, and stimulus measures such as direct payments contributed to inflationary pressures. By weakening the WHO, the U.S. increases the likelihood that future pandemics—like the ongoing spread of avian influenza—will last longer, cost more, and require even more drastic financial interventions. Failing to contain outbreaks quickly doesn’t just put lives at risk; it directly threatens economic stability at home and abroad.

Beyond economic fallout, withdrawing from the WHO also means the U.S. is no longer bound by international health regulations (IHR), which are critical during global health emergencies. The IHR framework ensures coordinated international responses to pandemics, mandating transparency and containment measures that prevent localized outbreaks from escalating into global catastrophes. Without these obligations, the U.S. could mishandle emerging threats, increasing the risk of uncontrolled outbreaks that could devastate both public health and the economy. By abandoning international health cooperation, the U.S. is choosing short-term isolation over long-term security—putting both lives and financial stability on the line.

Military/biodefense

The WHO serves as a critical platform for early warnings about infectious diseases, facilitating rapid information exchange and coordinated responses among member nations. By exiting the organization, the U.S. forfeits access to this vital intelligence, potentially delaying its awareness of emerging health threats and compromising its ability to implement timely countermeasures. This gap in early warning systems could lead to delayed responses to outbreaks, increasing the risk of widespread transmission and endangering public health.

Moreover, U.S. military personnel deployed overseas rely on WHO-led initiatives to combat endemic diseases in their regions of operation. The WHO's efforts in disease surveillance, vaccination programs, and health infrastructure support are integral to maintaining the health of service members. Withdrawal from the WHO jeopardizes these collaborative efforts, potentially exposing military personnel to higher risks of infection. While the U.S. Department of Defense has its own health surveillance and vaccination programs, these are often implemented in conjunction with WHO guidelines and support. The absence of WHO collaboration could lead to gaps in disease prevention measures, adversely affecting the health and readiness of U.S. forces.

Ironically, many service members who may support the withdrawal are the same individuals who will face increased health risks as a result. According to a 2024 Pew Research Center survey, 63% of veteran voters identify with or lean toward the Republican Party. This not only undermines global health security but also directly endangers the well-being of U.S. military personnel, who depend on international cooperation to safeguard their health during deployments.

Modeling

The U.S. withdrawal from the WHO did not occur in isolation–it set a precedent for other nations to disengage from global health governance, further weakening international cooperation. Argentina, for example, has followed the U.S.’s lead and has withdrawn from the WHO, citing similar concerns to President Trump. This sets the stage for a potential domino effect, where countries begin prioritizing nationalist policies over collective health. The consequence is clear: a fragmented global health system wherein nations are isolationist and fail to track pandemics, diseases, and any type of healthcare-related data. This shortsighted nationalism ignores the reality that no country, no matter its power, can single-handedly end a pandemic. If more states begin to follow suit, the world will be at significant risk regarding future health emergencies, leading to higher mortality rates, prolonged economic disruptions, and general instability.

The Truth Behind the “Illegal Alien”: Debunking Anti-Migrant Talking Points

Image credit: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

In the past few weeks, President Donald Trump declared a national emergency at the southern border, attempted to end birthright citizenship, suspended US refugee admissions, shut down the Biden administration’s immigration programs, and ordered for Guantanamo Bay to be prepared to house up to 30,000 migrants. Amongst this barrage of activity undertaken by President Trump, nothing exemplifies the US shift to reject its “melting pot” roots more than the intense influx of raids by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), paired with his consistent anti-immigrant rhetoric. The recent ICE raids have evidenced racial profiling, with American citizens being detained on the basis of their race or skin color, including indigenous American citizens of tribal nations. ICE has also been granted the authority by President Trump to apprehend migrants in or near schools, churches, and hospitals, prompting pushback from public schools. Sowed by claims of high crime rates from undocumented immigrants and stolen American jobs, the seeds of xenophobia have been planted quite deeply. But is there any factual basis to these anti-immigrant arguments? 

The extreme rise in anti-immigrant hate, discrimination, and administrative action necessitates an examination of the truth and facts on the topic. In an assessment of the common arguments against migrants in the US, there is little to no evidence supporting the claims of high crime rates, violence, and job-stealing. 

CLAIM: Migrants are criminals, murderers, terrorists, violent, etc. 

“Not only is Comrade Kamala allowing illegal aliens to stampede across our border, but then it was announced about a year ago that they’re actually flying them in. Nobody knew that they were secretly flying in hundreds of thousands of people, some of the worst murderers and terrorists you’ve ever seen,” said Trump at a news conference in Los Angeles, California on September 13, 2024.

FACT: Data indicates that immigration, including undocumented populations, is not linked to higher crime rates; in reality, the inverse is true. 

Studies have shown that immigration is not linked to higher crime rates. In fact, communities with greater immigrant population concentrations have been observed to have lower crime rates and increased levels of social connection and economic opportunity, which are factors indicative of neighborhood safety. 

Additionally, when it comes to claims of terrorism, a 2019 CATO Institute study examined terrorist attacks from 1975 to 2017 and found no association between immigration and terrorism. The study assessed terrorism’s relationship to immigration status, comparing native-born terrorism to foreign-born and undocumented migrants, and found that, in the 43-year period analyzed, there were 192 foreign‐​born terrorists and 788 native-born terrorists who planned, attempted, or carried out attacks on U.S. soil. The vast majority of attacks that were planned, attempted or carried out were made by native-born terrorists. Additionally, the chance of a citizen being killed in a terrorist attack by a refugee on U.S. soil is about 1 in 3.86 billion per year, and the chance of being murdered by an attack committed by an undocumented immigrant was found to be zero. 

Cases such as the tragic murder of Laken Riley have been wielded as examples and proof of this migrant-criminal generalization, despite their statistically unlikely nature. Native-born US citizens have been found to have significantly and consistently higher rates of violent crime in comparison to undocumented migrants, although these instances receive far less media attention. The case of Laken Riley in particular became a major campaign talking point for President Trump, who signed into law the Laken Riley Act in her honor. Ultimately leading many to overestimate the crime risks of migrants, specific cases like this have been utilized to continue the dissemination of the dangerous migrant narrative.  

CLAIM: Migrants steal American jobs and hurt the US economy.

“Virtually 100% of the net job creation in the last year has gone to migrants. You know that? Most of the job creation has gone to migrants. In fact, I’ve heard that substantially more than — beyond, actually beyond that number 100%. It’s a much higher number than that, but the government has not caught up with that yet,” said Trump in August of 2024.

FACT: Immigration helps boost the economy, and is not linked to higher American unemployment. 

The Congressional Budget Office reported in 2024 that immigration contributes significantly to economic growth, rather than stunting it. Economists believe that post-pandemic, the surge in immigration led to growth in the economy without contributing to price inflation. 

Furthermore, concerns about migrants stealing jobs from Americans have also been debunked. The rate of unemployment for US-born workers averaged around 3.6% in 2023: the lowest rate on record. The claim that more immigrants displace US-born workers is simply not factual, otherwise the unemployment rate would be significantly higher. The truth is that US-born workers have very low interest in labor-intensive and commonly agricultural jobs, which are then filled by migrants.

 Government data indicates that immigrant labor actually provides promotional opportunities for US-born workers, and that a mass-deportation event would cause costs of living to skyrocket. This is because immigrants tend to take jobs that are complementary to native-born workers, not acting as substitutes to them, but as supplements. Additionally, immigrants contribute not only to the labor supply, but to labor demand as well due to their consumption of goods and services. This is furthered by the entrepreneurial tendencies of many high-skilled immigrants; immigrants have been found to start businesses at higher rates than native-born workers, generating jobs and long-term economic growth. 

CLAIM: Migrants should just go back to their own country.

“Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came,” tweeted Trump in 2019, targeting progressive Democrat congresswomen who had been outspoken against his immigration stance. 

FACT: According to a study on those migrating to the US from Latin America and the Caribbean, nearly 73% have been victimized by violent crime in their home countries, many of which have been destabilized throughout history by US interventions. 

The largest population of migrants in the US is from Mexico, making up around 23% of the country’s total immigrant population. In 2022, a UN International Organization for Migration survey found that 90% of Mexican migrants fled due to violence, extortion, or organized crime. 

Similarly, undocumented immigration from the Northern Triangle (El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras) has been increasing steadily over the past 30 years. Looking at the US involvement in these countries, all three have been destabilized by past US intervention. 

During El Salvador’s 12 year long civil war from 1979 to 1992, the US government backed the repressive regime that dispatched paramilitary death squads against civilians. Post-war, El Salvador saw an explosion of gang violence across the country. Guatemala has been plagued by national instability for decades, which was largely exacerbated by a 1954 CIA-backed coup that triggered an armed insurgency. Guatemala has since faced decades of human rights abuses committed by its leaders. The 2009 Honduras coup was supported by US DoD officials, and led to an age of violence and instability in the country that's effects are still felt today. Post-coup, Honduras has faced extreme poverty, economic inequality, and gang violence. 

Additionally, studies have examined the distinct correlation between US firearm manufacturing and the rates of gun violence in Latin America and the Caribbean. The US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives indicates that a large sum of guns recovered from crimes in El Salvador, Honduras, and Mexico were manufactured in the US. The US remains one of the main legal firearm exporters to Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, and the US Government Accountability Office reported that these legal exports are often diverted to criminal networks.

Global migration has increased overall over the past few decades, hitting a record high in 2023. As of May 2024, over  120 million people have been forcibly displaced due to human rights violations, persecution, conflict and violence around the world, including 6.4 million asylum seekers.

CLAIM: They should just come into the country legally. 

“The current administration terminated every single one of those great Trump policies that I put in place to seal the border. I wanted a sealed border. Again, come in but come in legally,” said Trump in his speech at the Republican National Convention in July of 2024.

FACT: It’s not that migrants do not want to enter legally, but rather structural, institutional, and financial obstacles impede them from doing so.

Many migrants do want to come into the US legally. The process however, is extremely time-consuming and difficult to navigate. In the years following the outbreak of COVID-19 there has been a massive backlog in cases, amounting to 2 million pending cases in 2023— more than triple the amount from 2017. Partly due to understaffed immigration courts, the backlog means years of waiting for a case to be heard. Beyond shortages in immigration judges and staff, the DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review has been found to have “longstanding workforce management challenges,” and “did not have a strategic workforce plan to address them,” according to the US Government Accountability Office. 

Additionally, immigrants and asylum seekers are five times more likely to win their case if they have a lawyer. Unfortunately, publicly-funded lawyers are not a right for migrants, and even if they were , there is a massive shortage in immigration lawyers to begin with, and they are often far too costly to obtain. To make matters worse, many migrants don’t speak English, and ICE provides little guidance on how to go about legal processes, and certainly not any translated versions of instructions or resources. 

THE BOTTOM LINE:

As Trump continues his flurry of anti-immigrant actions, it’s essential to remain vigilant to the facts and truth. We must work to see these baseless claims as what they truly are: hateful rhetoric, not factual arguments. Diversity in the US should be celebrated, not abhorred. Dehumanizing language should have no place in the US government, especially not in our highest office. Maintaining a high integrity of indiscrimination and empathy for one another is more necessary now than ever, especially in wake of Trump’s anti-DEI initiatives.

All of these actions are justified by Trump with claims of high levels of violence and crime committed by undocumented immigrants, often paired with extremely degrading language of animalistic and impure nature. The claims by Trump of migrants being “animals”, “not people”, and “poisoning the blood of our country” strikingly resemble the verbal dehumanization that precedes massive cultural violence and genocide. In his book Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler used the phrase “blood poisoning” as a way to criticize the mixing of races, and during the Rwandan Genocide Tutsis were commonly referred to as “cockroaches”. This sort of dehumanization is designated as the fourth of the ten stages of genocide. 

With the first flights full of deported migrants landing in Guantanamo Bay this past Tuesday, our full attention must be on the treatment of migrants, legality, and ethics of this detainment. Guantanamo Bay has repeatedly been subject to strong criticism by human rights groups for violating basic human rights, holding detainees without charges or trials, and violating the US Constitution; the implications of holding deported migrants at the facility are quite alarming, with high potential for human rights abuses obscured from the public eye.

The Trump Administration’s Oncoming Attack on Birthright Citizenship: What Does It Mean to Be an American?

Via Flickr

American birthright citizenship, and the associated rights and liberties, is core to the American experiment. The idea that someone born in the fifty states, regardless of their race, gender, status, or parents’ country of origin, is entitled to all of the freedoms, protections, and civic responsibilities that the United States has to offer, is an incredibly compelling one. American citizenship is intrinsic and inalienable. It has given us some of the nation’s best and brightest and created a distinct national identity; we can recognize our distinct ethnic, religious, or regional differences while living in the same communities, voting together, catching a football game, and so on. It unifies us – we are all “one America.”  It is what allows American communities to become cohesive and truly great; removal and separation breaks down the communities that make up our nation. It is this integral, compelling core value that is being challenged by recent executive orders by the Trump administration. 

Mere hours after being inaugurated again, President Donald Trump signed an executive order “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” In doing so, the Trump administration seeks to “protect” American citizenship by redefining birthright citizenship to require both parents of a child to, at minimum, be legal residents of the US (green card holders) or full citizens. Prior to this, any child born on US soil was granted birthright citizenship, regardless of their parents’ legal status or nationality. This principle was codified in the 14th Amendment, which was designed to overturn the court precedent established in Dred Scott v Sanford, the landmark 1856 Supreme Court case that denied African-American slaves American citizenship despite being born on American soil. It was further solidified in another SCOTUS case, United States v Wong Kim Ark, in which a Chinese-American born in San Francisco had been denied citizenship on the basis that his parents were Chinese nationals during the time of the Chinese Exclusion Act, even though his parents were considered permanent residents of the United States. Ultimately, in the case Wong Kim Ark was found to be a citizen, therefore establishing the precedent that the parents’ origin is irrelevant to the citizenship status of their child. Birthright citizenship applies in almost all cases, with children of foreign diplomats being the only exception, as they’re not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. The question is, how does this executive order overturn years of legal convention?

It is that exact phrasing in the 14th Amendment, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (meaning the jurisdiction of the United States) that the Trump administration has used to justify the executive order. In essence, the executive order asserts that a child born to parents that are not in the United States legally or are in the United States temporarily (on a visiting or student visa) is therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but rather the parent’s country of origin. In other words, the administration has exploited the vagueness of the terminology to say that the US has no legal responsibility to someone whose parents do not hold permanent residence in the US. Executive orders, from a legal standpoint, are used to direct how the executive branch should enforce legal policy; often, they are used to enact policy that would otherwise be legislatively difficult, but it is still possible to legally challenge or prevent an executive order through the legislative and judicial branches. For the time being, a federal district court judge has blocked the order temporarily on the grounds that it is built off a bad-faith constitutional interpretation, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.” But, the directive still holds political weight; it makes good on Trump’s political promises, yes, but it also establishes a more essentialist view on what it takes to be an American, especially in the context of the country’s changing demographics and rising rates of global migration. Moreover, it is an order that, while likely to be overturned, still inflicts fear in both his political opponents and any prospective migrants. 

Where do we go from here? Should the case go to the Supreme Court, there is a good chance that even the Trump-appointed justices break from the administration. Justice Amy Coney Barrett has been shown to break rank in favor of logical and clear constitutional rulings, highly valuing her own conservative principles and not wanting to serve as a mere pawn to the Republican agenda. Chief Justice John Roberts places high value on judicial precedent; this is evident in his concurring opinion in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, in which he emphasizes judicial restraint and stare decisis. Justice Neil Gorsuch has also occasionally taken more diverse ideological stances, authoring the majority opinions in Bostock v Clayton County and McGirt v Oklahoma, opposing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and in support of the sovereignty of Native American lands. Something with this clear of a judicial precedent is unlikely to be overturned easily, but it is still a possibility; in recent years, the court has shown a willingness to overturn long-held precedent, especially given the recent decisions overturning Roe v Wade and Chevron v NRDC. More than that, however, this executive order has opened the political and ideological floodgates. The country is facing an intense, vehement reckoning over immigration, from the looming crackdown on irregular migration to the political battles over H-1B (work visa) recipients. Amid these political battles, we again ask, what is the meaning and value of American citizenship? Who deserves to be a citizen? This executive order may well be a step toward a narrower, more exclusive definition of what an American citizen is.